measure_notes_ch2.pdf

CHAPTER 2
Lebesgue Measure on Rn
Our goal is to construct a notion of the volume, or Lebesgue measure, of rather
general subsets of Rn
that reduces to the usual volume of elementary geometrical
sets such as cubes or rectangles.
If L(Rn
) denotes the collection of Lebesgue measurable sets and
µ : L(Rn
) → [0, ∞]
denotes Lebesgue measure, then we want L(Rn
) to contain all n-dimensional rect-
angles and µ(R) should be the usual volume of a rectangle R. Moreover, we want
µ to be countably additive. That is, if
{Ai ∈ L(Rn
) : i ∈ N}
is a countable collection of disjoint measurable sets, then their union should be
measurable and
µ
∞
[
i=1
Ai
!
=
∞
X
i=1
µ (Ai) .
The reason for requiring countable additivity is that finite additivity is too weak
a property to allow the justification of any limiting processes, while uncountable
additivity is too strong; for example, it would imply that if the measure of a set
consisting of a single point is zero, then the measure of every subset of Rn
would
be zero.
It is not possible to define the Lebesgue measure of all subsets of Rn
in a
geometrically reasonable way. Hausdorff (1914) showed that for any dimension
n ≥ 1, there is no countably additive measure defined on all subsets of Rn
that is
invariant under isometries (translations and rotations) and assigns measure one to
the unit cube. He further showed that if n ≥ 3, there is no such finitely additive
measure. This result is dramatized by the Banach-Tarski ‘paradox’: Banach and
Tarski (1924) showed that if n ≥ 3, one can cut up a ball in Rn
into a finite number
of pieces and use isometries to reassemble the pieces into a ball of any desired volume
e.g. reassemble a pea into the sun. The ‘construction’ of these pieces requires the
axiom of choice.1
Banach (1923) also showed that if n = 1 or n = 2 there are
finitely additive, isometrically invariant extensions of Lebesgue measure on Rn
that
are defined on all subsets of Rn
, but these extensions are not countably additive.
For a detailed discussion of the Banach-Tarski paradox and related issues, see [10].
The moral of these results is that some subsets of Rn
are too irregular to define
their Lebesgue measure in a way that preserves countable additivity (or even finite
additivity in n ≥ 3 dimensions) together with the invariance of the measure under
1Solovay (1970) proved that one has to use the axiom of choice to obtain non-Lebesgue
measurable sets.
9

10 2. LEBESGUE MEASURE ON Rn
isometries. We will show, however, that such a measure can be defined on a σ-
algebra L(Rn
) of Lebesgue measurable sets which is large enough to include all set
of ‘practical’ importance in analysis. Moreover, as we will see, it is possible to define
an isometrically-invariant, countably sub-additive outer measure on all subsets of
Rn
.
There are many ways to construct Lebesgue measure, all of which lead to the
same result. We will follow an approach due to Carathéodory, which generalizes
to other measures: We first construct an outer measure on all subsets of Rn
by
approximating them from the outside by countable unions of rectangles; we then
restrict this outer measure to a σ-algebra of measurable subsets on which it is count-
ably additive. This approach is somewhat asymmetrical in that we approximate
sets (and their complements) from the outside by elementary sets, but we do not
approximate them directly from the inside.
Jones [5], Stein and Shakarchi [8], and Wheeler and Zygmund [11] give detailed
introductions to Lebesgue measure on Rn
. Cohn [2] gives a similar development to
the one here, and Evans and Gariepy [3] discuss more advanced topics.
2.1. Lebesgue outer measure
We use rectangles as our elementary sets, defined as follows.
Definition 2.1. An n-dimensional, closed rectangle with sides oriented parallel
to the coordinate axes, or rectangle for short, is a subset R ⊂ Rn
of the form
R = [a1, b1] × [a2, b2] × · · · × [an, bn]
where −∞ < ai ≤ bi < ∞ for i = 1, . . . , n. The volume µ(R) of R is
µ(R) = (b1 − a1)(b2 − a2) . . . (bn − an).
If n = 1 or n = 2, the volume of a rectangle is its length or area, respectively.
We also consider the empty set to be a rectangle with µ(∅) = 0. We denote the
collection of all n-dimensional rectangles by R(Rn
), or R when n is understood,
and then R 7→ µ(R) defines a map
µ : R(Rn
) → [0, ∞).
The use of this particular class of elementary sets is for convenience. We could
equally well use open or half-open rectangles, cubes, balls, or other suitable ele-
mentary sets; the result would be the same.
Definition 2.2. The outer Lebesgue measure µ∗
(E) of a subset E ⊂ Rn
, or
outer measure for short, is
(2.1) µ∗
(E) = inf
( ∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) : E ⊂
S∞
i=1 Ri, Ri ∈ R(Rn
)
)
where the infimum is taken over all countable collections of rectangles whose union
contains E. The map
µ∗
: P(Rn
) → [0, ∞], µ∗
: E 7→ µ∗
(E)
is called outer Lebesgue measure.

2.1. LEBESGUE OUTER MEASURE 11
In this definition, a sum
P∞
i=1 µ(Ri) and µ∗
(E) may take the value ∞. We do
not require that the rectangles Ri are disjoint, so the same volume may contribute
to multiple terms in the sum on the right-hand side of (2.1); this does not affect
the value of the infimum.
Example 2.3. Let E = Q ∩ [0, 1] be the set of rational numbers between 0
and 1. Then E has outer measure zero. To prove this, let {qi : i ∈ N} be an
enumeration of the points in E. Given ǫ > 0, let Ri be an interval of length ǫ/2i
which contains qi. Then E ⊂
S∞
i=1 µ(Ri) so
0 ≤ µ∗
(E) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) = ǫ.
Hence µ∗
(E) = 0 since ǫ > 0 is arbitrary. The same argument shows that any
countable set has outer measure zero. Note that if we cover E by a finite collection
of intervals, then the union of the intervals would have to contain [0, 1] since E is
dense in [0, 1] so their lengths sum to at least one.
The previous example illustrates why we need to use countably infinite collec-
tions of rectangles, not just finite collections, to define the outer measure.2
The
‘countable ǫ-trick’ used in the example appears in various forms throughout measure
theory.
Next, we prove that µ∗
is an outer measure in the sense of Definition 1.2.
Theorem 2.4. Lebesgue outer measure µ∗
has the following properties.
(a) µ∗
(∅) = 0;
(b) if E ⊂ F, then µ∗
(E) ≤ µ∗
(F);
(c) if {Ei ⊂ Rn
: i ∈ N} is a countable collection of subsets of Rn
, then
µ∗
∞
[
i=1
Ei
!
≤
∞
X
i=1
µ∗
(Ei) .
Proof. It follows immediately from Definition 2.2 that µ∗
(∅) = 0, since every
collection of rectangles covers ∅, and that µ∗
(E) ≤ µ∗
(F) if E ⊂ F since any cover
of F covers E.
The main property to prove is the countable subadditivity of µ∗
. If µ∗
(Ei) = ∞
for some i ∈ N, there is nothing to prove, so we may assume that µ∗
(Ei) is finite
for every i ∈ N. If ǫ > 0, there is a countable covering {Rij : j ∈ N} of Ei by
rectangles Rij such that
∞
X
j=1
µ(Rij) ≤ µ∗
(Ei) +
ǫ
2i
, Ei ⊂
∞
[
j=1
Rij.
Then {Rij : i, j ∈ N} is a countable covering of
E =
∞
[
i=1
Ei
2The use of finitely many intervals leads to the notion of the Jordan content of a set, intro-
duced by Peano (1887) and Jordan (1892), which is closely related to the Riemann integral; Borel
(1898) and Lebesgue (1902) generalized Jordan’s approach to allow for countably many intervals,
leading to Lebesgue measure and the Lebesgue integral.

and therefore
µ∗
(E) ≤
∞
X
i,j=1
µ(Rij) ≤
∞
X
i=1
n
µ∗
(Ei) +
ǫ
2i
o
=
∞
X
i=1
µ∗
(Ei) + ǫ.
Since ǫ > 0 is arbitrary, it follows that
µ∗
(E) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ∗
(Ei)
which proves the result.
2.2. Outer measure of rectangles
In this section, we prove the geometrically obvious, but not entirely trivial, fact
that the outer measure of a rectangle is equal to its volume. The main point is to
show that the volumes of a countable collection of rectangles that cover a rectangle
R cannot sum to less than the volume of R.3
We begin with some combinatorial facts about finite covers of rectangles [8].
We denote the interior of a rectangle R by R◦
, and we say that rectangles R, S
are almost disjoint if R◦
∩ S◦
= ∅, meaning that they intersect at most along their
boundaries. The proofs of the following results are cumbersome to write out in
detail (it’s easier to draw a picture) but we briefly explain the argument.
Lemma 2.5. Suppose that
R = I1 × I2 × · · · × In
is an n-dimensional rectangle where each closed, bounded interval Ii ⊂ R is an
almost disjoint union of closed, bounded intervals {Ii,j ⊂ R : j = 1, . . . , Ni},
Ii =
Ni
[
j=1
Ii,j.
Define the rectangles
(2.2) Sj1j2...jn = I1,j1 × I2,j2 × · · · × In,jn .
Then
µ(R) =
N1
X
j1=1
· · ·
Nn
X
jn=1
µ (Sj1j2...jn ) .
Proof. Denoting the length of an interval I by |I|, using the fact that
|Ii| =
Ni
X
j=1
|Ii,j|,
3As a partial justification of the need to prove this fact, note that it would not be true if we
allowed uncountable covers, since we could cover any rectangle by an uncountable collection of
points all of whose volumes are zero.

2.2. OUTER MEASURE OF RECTANGLES 13
and expanding the resulting product, we get that
µ(R) = |I1||I2| . . . |In|
=


N1
X
j1=1
|I1,j1 |




N2
X
j2=1
|I2,j2 |

 . . .


Nn
X
jn=1
|In,jn |


=
N1
X
j1=1
N2
X
j2=1
· · ·
Nn
X
jn=1
|I1,j1 ||I2,j2 | . . . |In,jn |
=
N1
X
j1=1
N2
X
j2=1
· · ·
Nn
X
jn=1
µ (Sj1j2...jn ) .

Proposition 2.6. If a rectangle R is an almost disjoint, finite union of rect-
angles {R1, R2, . . . , RN }, then
(2.3) µ(R) =
N
X
i=1
µ(Ri).
If R is covered by rectangles {R1, R2, . . . , RN }, which need not be disjoint, then
(2.4) µ(R) ≤
N
X
i=1
µ(Ri).
Proof. Suppose that
R = [a1, b1] × [a2, b2] × · · · × [an, bn]
is an almost disjoint union of the rectangles {R1, R2, . . . , RN }. Then by ‘extending
the sides’ of the Ri, we may decompose R into an almost disjoint collection of
rectangles
{Sj1j2...jn : 1 ≤ ji ≤ Ni for 1 ≤ i ≤ n}
that is obtained by taking products of subintervals of partitions of the coordinate
intervals [ai, bi] into unions of almost disjoint, closed subintervals. Explicitly, we
partition [ai, bi] into
ai = ci,0 ≤ ci,1 ≤ · · · ≤ ci,Ni = bi, Ii,j = [ci,j−1, ci,j].
where the ci,j are obtained by ordering the left and right ith coordinates of all faces
of rectangles in the collection {R1, R2, . . . , RN }, and define rectangles Sj1j2...jn as
in (2.2).
Each rectangle Ri in the collection is an almost disjoint union of rectangles
Sj1j2...jn , and their union contains all such products exactly once, so by applying
Lemma 2.5 to each Ri and summing the results we see that
N
X
i=1
µ(Ri) =
N1
X
j1=1
· · ·
Nn
X
jn=1
µ (Sj1j2...jn ) .
Similarly, R is an almost disjoint union of all the rectangles Sj1j2...jn , so Lemma 2.5
implies that
µ(R) =
N1
X
j1=1
· · ·
Nn
X
jn=1
µ (Sj1j2...jn ) ,

and (2.3) follows.
If a finite collection of rectangles {R1, R2, . . . , RN } covers R, then there is a
almost disjoint, finite collection of rectangles {S1, S2, . . . , SM } such that
R =
M
[
i=1
Si,
M
X
i=1
µ(Si) ≤
N
X
i=1
µ(Ri).
To obtain the Si, we replace Ri by the rectangle R ∩ Ri, and then decompose
these possibly non-disjoint rectangles into an almost disjoint, finite collection of
sub-rectangles with the same union; we discard ‘overlaps’ which can only reduce
the sum of the volumes. Then, using (2.3), we get
µ(R) =
M
X
i=1
µ(Si) ≤
N
X
i=1
µ(Ri),
which proves (2.4).
The outer measure of a rectangle is defined in terms of countable covers. We
reduce these to finite covers by using the topological properties of Rn
.
Proposition 2.7. If R is a rectangle in Rn
, then µ∗
(R) = µ(R).
Proof. Since {R} covers R, we have µ∗
(R) ≤ µ(R), so we only need to prove
the reverse inequality.
Suppose that {Ri : i ∈ N} is a countably infinite collection of rectangles that
covers R. By enlarging Ri slightly we may obtain a rectangle Si whose interior S◦
i
contains Ri such that
µ(Si) ≤ µ(Ri) +
ǫ
2i
.
Then {S◦
i : i ∈ N} is an open cover of the compact set R, so it contains a finite
subcover, which we may label as {S◦
1 , S◦
2 , . . . , S◦
N }. Then {S1, S2, . . . , SN } covers
R and, using (2.4), we find that
µ(R) ≤
N
X
i=1
µ(Si) ≤
N
X
i=1
n
µ(Ri) +
ǫ
2i
o
≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) + ǫ.
Since ǫ 0 is arbitrary, we have
µ(R) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri)
and it follows that µ(R) ≤ µ∗
(R).
2.3. Carathéodory measurability
We will obtain Lebesgue measure as the restriction of Lebesgue outer measure
to Lebesgue measurable sets. The construction, due to Carathéodory, works for any
outer measure, as given in Definition 1.2, so we temporarily consider general outer
measures. We will return to Lebesgue measure on Rn
at the end of this section.
The following is the Carathéodory definition of measurability.
Definition 2.8. Let µ∗
be an outer measure on a set X. A subset A ⊂ X is
Carathéodory measurable with respect to µ∗
, or measurable for short, if
(2.5) µ∗
(E) = µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
)

2.3. CARATHÉODORY MEASURABILITY 15
for every subset E ⊂ X.
We also write E ∩ Ac
as E A. Thus, a measurable set A splits any set
E into disjoint pieces whose outer measures add up to the outer measure of E.
Heuristically, this condition means that a set is measurable if it divides other sets
in a ‘nice’ way. The regularity of the set E being divided is not important here.
Since µ∗
is subadditive, we always have that
µ∗
(E) ≤ µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
).
Thus, in order to prove that A ⊂ X is measurable, it is sufficient to show that
µ∗
(E) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
)
for every E ⊂ X, and then we have equality as in (2.5).
Definition 2.8 is perhaps not the most intuitive way to define the measurability
of sets, but it leads directly to the following key result.
Theorem 2.9. The collection of Carathéodory measurable sets with respect to
an outer measure µ∗
is a σ-algebra, and the restriction of µ∗
to the measurable sets
is a measure.
Proof. It follows immediately from (2.5) that ∅ is measurable and the comple-
ment of a measurable set is measurable, so to prove that the collection of measurable
sets is a σ-algebra, we only need to show that it is closed under countable unions.
We will prove at the same time that µ∗
is countably additive on measurable sets;
since µ∗
(∅) = 0, this will prove that the restriction of µ∗
to the measurable sets is
a measure.
First, we prove that the union of measurable sets is measurable. Suppose that
A, B are measurable and E ⊂ X. The measurability of A and B implies that
µ∗
(E) = µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
)
= µ∗
(E ∩ A ∩ B) + µ∗
(E ∩ A ∩ Bc
)
+ µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
∩ B) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
∩ Bc
).
(2.6)
Since A ∪ B = (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ Bc
) ∪ (Ac
∩ B) and µ∗
is subadditive, we have
µ∗
(E ∩ (A ∪ B)) ≤ µ∗
(E ∩ A ∩ B) + µ∗
(E ∩ A ∩ Bc
) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
∩ B).
The use of this inequality and the relation Ac
∩ Bc
= (A ∪ B)c
in (2.6) implies that
µ∗
(E) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ (A ∪ B)) + µ∗
(E ∩ (A ∪ B)c
)
so A ∪ B is measurable.
Moreover, if A is measurable and A ∩ B = ∅, then by taking E = A ∪ B in
(2.5), we see that
µ∗
(A ∪ B) = µ∗
(A) + µ∗
(B).
Thus, the outer measure of the union of disjoint, measurable sets is the sum of
their outer measures. The repeated application of this result implies that the finite
union of measurable sets is measurable and µ∗
is finitely additive on the collection
of measurable sets.
Next, we we want to show that the countable union of measurable sets is
measurable. It is sufficient to consider disjoint unions. To see this, note that if

{Ai : i ∈ N} is a countably infinite collection of measurable sets, then
Bj =
j
[
i=1
Ai, for j ≥ 1
form an increasing sequence of measurable sets, and
Cj = Bj Bj−1 for j ≥ 2, C1 = B1
form a disjoint measurable collection of sets. Moreover
∞
[
i=1
Ai =
∞
[
j=1
Cj.
Suppose that {Ai : i ∈ N} is a countably infinite, disjoint collection of measur-
able sets, and define
Bj =
j
[
i=1
Ai, B =
∞
[
i=1
Ai.
Let E ⊂ X. Since Aj is measurable and Bj = Aj ∪ Bj−1 is a disjoint union (for
j ≥ 2),
µ∗
(E ∩ Bj) = µ∗
(E ∩ Bj ∩ Aj) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bj ∩ Ac
j), .
= µ∗
(E ∩ Aj) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bj−1).
Also µ∗
(E ∩ B1) = µ∗
(E ∩ A1). It follows by induction that
µ∗
(E ∩ Bj) =
j
X
i=1
µ∗
(E ∩ Ai).
Since Bj is a finite union of measurable sets, it is measurable, so
µ∗
(E) = µ∗
(E ∩ Bj) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
j ),
and since Bc
j ⊃ Bc
, we have
µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
j ) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
).
It follows that
µ∗
(E) ≥
j
X
i=1
µ∗
(E ∩ Ai) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
).
Taking the limit of this inequality as j → ∞ and using the subadditivity of µ∗
, we
get
µ∗
(E) ≥
∞
X
i=1
µ∗
(E ∩ Ai) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
)
≥ µ∗
∞
[
i=1
E ∩ Ai
!
+ µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
)
≥ µ∗
(E ∩ B) + µ∗
(E ∩ Bc
)
≥ µ∗
(E).
(2.7)

2.3. CARATHÉODORY MEASURABILITY 17
Therefore, we must have equality in (2.7), which shows that B =
S∞
i=1 Ai is mea-
surable. Moreover,
µ∗
∞
[
i=1
E ∩ Ai
!
=
∞
X
i=1
µ∗
(E ∩ Ai),
so taking E = X, we see that µ∗
is countably additive on the σ-algebra of measur-
able sets.
Returning to Lebesgue measure on Rn
, the preceding theorem shows that we
get a measure on Rn
by restricting Lebesgue outer measure to its Carathéodory-
measurable sets, which are the Lebesgue measurable subsets of Rn
.
Definition 2.10. A subset A ⊂ Rn
is Lebesgue measurable if
µ∗
(E) = µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
)
for every subset E ⊂ Rn
. If L(Rn
) denotes the σ-algebra of Lebesgue measurable
sets, the restriction of Lebesgue outer measure µ∗
to the Lebesgue measurable sets
µ : L(Rn
) → [0, ∞], µ = µ∗
|L(Rn)
is called Lebesgue measure.
From Proposition 2.7, this notation is consistent with our previous use of µ to
denote the volume of a rectangle. If E ⊂ Rn
is any measurable subset of Rn
, then
we define Lebesgue measure on E by restricting Lebesgue measure on Rn
to E, as
in Definition 1.10, and denote the corresponding σ-algebra of Lebesgue measurable
subsets of E by L(E).
Next, we prove that all rectangles are measurable; this implies that L(Rn
) is a
‘large’ collection of subsets of Rn
. Not all subsets of Rn
are Lebesgue measurable,
however; e.g. see Example 2.17 below.
Proposition 2.11. Every rectangle is Lebesgue measurable.
Proof. Let R be an n-dimensional rectangle and E ⊂ Rn
. Given ǫ 0, there
is a cover {Ri : i ∈ N} of E by rectangles Ri such that
µ∗
(E) + ǫ ≥
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri).
We can decompose Ri into an almost disjoint, finite union of rectangles
{R̃i, Si,1, . . . , Si,N }
such that
Ri = R̃i +
N
[
j=1
Si,j, R̃i = Ri ∩ R ⊂ R, Si,j ⊂ Rc.
From (2.3),
µ(Ri) = µ(R̃i) +
N
X
j=1
µ(Si,j).
Using this result in the previous sum, relabeling the Si,j as Si, and rearranging the
resulting sum, we get that
µ∗
(E) + ǫ ≥
∞
X
i=1
µ(R̃i) +
∞
X
i=1
µ(Si).

Since the rectangles {R̃i : i ∈ N} cover E ∩ R and the rectangles {Si : i ∈ N} cover
E ∩ Rc
, we have
µ∗
(E ∩ R) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(R̃i), µ∗
(E ∩ Rc
) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Si).
Hence,
µ∗
(E) + ǫ ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ R) + µ∗
(E ∩ Rc
).
Since ǫ 0 is arbitrary, it follows that
µ∗
(E) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ R) + µ∗
(E ∩ Rc
),
which proves the result.
An open rectangle R◦
is a union of an increasing sequence of closed rectangles
whose volumes approach µ(R); for example
(a1, b1) × (a2, b2) × · · · × (an, bn)
=
∞
[
k=1
[a1 +
1
k
, b1 −
1
k
] × [a2 +
1
k
, b2 −
1
k
] × · · · × [an +
1
k
, bn −
1
k
].
Thus, R◦
is measurable and, from Proposition 1.12,
µ(R◦
) = µ(R).
Moreover if ∂R = R R◦
denotes the boundary of R, then
µ(∂R) = µ(R) − µ(R◦
) = 0.
2.4. Null sets and completeness
Sets of measure zero play a particularly important role in measure theory and
integration. First, we show that all sets with outer Lebesgue measure zero are
Lebesgue measurable.
Proposition 2.12. If N ⊂ Rn
and µ∗
(N) = 0, then N is Lebesgue measurable,
and the measure space (Rn
, L(Rn
), µ) is complete.
Proof. If N ⊂ Rn
has outer Lebesgue measure zero and E ⊂ Rn
, then
0 ≤ µ∗
(E ∩ N) ≤ µ∗
(N) = 0,
so µ∗
(E ∩ N) = 0. Therefore, since E ⊃ E ∩ Nc
,
µ∗
(E) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ Nc
) = µ∗
(E ∩ N) + µ∗
(E ∩ Nc
),
which shows that N is measurable. If N is a measurable set with µ(N) = 0 and
M ⊂ N, then µ∗
(M) = 0, since µ∗
(M) ≤ µ(N). Therefore M is measurable and
(Rn
, L(Rn
), µ) is complete.
In view of the importance of sets of measure zero, we formulate their definition
explicitly.
Definition 2.13. A subset N ⊂ Rn
has Lebesgue measure zero if for every
ǫ 0 there exists a countable collection of rectangles {Ri : i ∈ N} such that
N ⊂
∞
[
i=1
Ri,
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) ǫ.

2.5. TRANSLATIONAL INVARIANCE 19
The argument in Example 2.3 shows that every countable set has Lebesgue
measure zero, but sets of measure zero may be uncountable; in fact the fine structure
of sets of measure zero is, in general, very intricate.
Example 2.14. The standard Cantor set, obtained by removing ‘middle thirds’
from [0, 1], is an uncountable set of zero one-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
Example 2.15. The x-axis in R2
A =

(x, 0) ∈ R2
: x ∈ R

has zero two-dimensional Lebesgue measure. More generally, any linear subspace of
Rn
with dimension strictly less than n has zero n-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
2.5. Translational invariance
An important geometric property of Lebesgue measure is its translational in-
variance. If A ⊂ Rn
and h ∈ Rn
, let
A + h = {x + h : x ∈ A}
denote the translation of A by h.
Proposition 2.16. If A ⊂ Rn
and h ∈ Rn
, then
µ∗
(A + h) = µ∗
(A),
and A + h is measurable if and only if A is measurable.
Proof. The invariance of outer measure µ∗
result is an immediate consequence
of the definition, since {Ri + h : i ∈ N} is a cover of A + h if and only if {Ri :
i ∈ N} is a cover of A, and µ(R + h) = µ(R) for every rectangle R. Moreover, the
Carathéodory definition of measurability is invariant under translations since
(E + h) ∩ (A + h) = (E ∩ A) + h.

The space Rn
is a locally compact topological (abelian) group with respect to
translation, which is a continuous operation. More generally, there exists a (left or
right) translation-invariant measure, called Haar measure, on any locally compact
topological group; this measure is unique up to a scalar factor.
The following is the standard example of a non-Lebesgue measurable set, due
to Vitali (1905).
Example 2.17. Define an equivalence relation ∼ on R by x ∼ y if x − y ∈ Q.
This relation has uncountably many equivalence classes, each of which contains a
countably infinite number of points and is dense in R. Let E ⊂ [0, 1] be a set that
contains exactly one element from each equivalence class, so that R is the disjoint
union of the countable collection of rational translates of E. Then we claim that E
is not Lebesgue measurable.
To show this, suppose for contradiction that E is measurable. Let {qi : i ∈ N}
be an enumeration of the rational numbers in the interval [−1, 1] and let Ei = E+qi
denote the translation of E by qi. Then the sets Ei are disjoint and
[0, 1] ⊂
∞
[
i=1
Ei ⊂ [−1, 2].

The translational invariance of Lebesgue measure implies that each Ei is measurable
with µ(Ei) = µ(E), and the countable additivity of Lebesgue measure implies that
1 ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ei) ≤ 3.
But this is impossible, since
P∞
i=1 µ(Ei) is either 0 or ∞, depending on whether if
µ(E) = 0 or µ(E) 0.
The above example is geometrically simpler on the circle T = R/Z. When
reduced modulo one, the sets {Ei : i ∈ N} partition T into a countable union of
disjoint sets which are translations of each other. If the sets were measurable, their
measures would be equal so they must sum to 0 or ∞, but the measure of T is one.
2.6. Borel sets
The relationship between measure and topology is not a simple one. In this
section, we show that all open and closed sets in Rn
, and therefore all Borel sets
(i.e. sets that belong to the σ-algebra generated by the open sets), are Lebesgue
measurable.
Let T (Rn
) ⊂ P(Rn
) denote the standard metric topology on Rn
consisting of
all open sets. That is, G ⊂ Rn
belongs to T (Rn
) if for every x ∈ G there exists
r 0 such that Br(x) ⊂ G, where
Br(x) = {y ∈ Rn
: |x − y| r}
is the open ball of radius r centered at x ∈ Rn
and |·| denotes the Euclidean norm.
Definition 2.18. The Borel σ-algebra B(Rn
) on Rn
is the σ-algebra generated
by the open sets, B(Rn
) = σ (T (Rn
)). A set that belongs to the Borel σ-algebra is
called a Borel set.
Since σ-algebras are closed under complementation, the Borel σ-algebra is also
generated by the closed sets in Rn
. Moreover, since Rn
is σ-compact (i.e. it is a
countable union of compact sets) its Borel σ-algebra is generated by the compact
sets.
Remark 2.19. This definition is not constructive, since we start with the power
set of Rn
and narrow it down until we obtain the smallest σ-algebra that contains
the open sets. It is surprisingly complicated to obtain B(Rn
) by starting from
the open or closed sets and taking successive complements, countable unions, and
countable intersections. These operations give sequences of collections of sets in Rn
(2.8) G ⊂ Gδ ⊂ Gδσ ⊂ Gδσδ ⊂ . . . , F ⊂ Fσ ⊂ Fσδ ⊂ Fδσδ ⊂ . . . ,
where G denotes the open sets, F the closed sets, σ the operation of countable
unions, and δ the operation of countable intersections. These collections contain
each other; for example, Fσ ⊃ G and Gδ ⊃ F. This process, however, has to
be repeated up to the first uncountable ordinal before we obtain B(Rn
). This is
because if, for example, {Ai : i ∈ N} is a countable family of sets such that
A1 ∈ Gδ G, A2 ∈ Gδσ Gδ, A3 ∈ Gδσδ Gδσ, . . .
and so on, then there is no guarantee that
S∞
i=1 Ai or
T∞
i=1 Ai belongs to any of
the previously constructed families. In general, one only knows that they belong to
the ω + 1 iterates Gδσδ...σ or Gδσδ...δ, respectively, where ω is the ordinal number

2.6. BOREL SETS 21
of N. A similar argument shows that in order to obtain a family which is closed
under countable intersections or unions, one has to continue this process until one
has constructed an uncountable number of families.
To show that open sets are measurable, we will represent them as countable
unions of rectangles. Every open set in R is a countable disjoint union of open
intervals (one-dimensional open rectangles). When n ≥ 2, it is not true that every
open set in Rn
is a countable disjoint union of open rectangles, but we have the
following substitute.
Proposition 2.20. Every open set in Rn
is a countable union of almost disjoint
rectangles.
Proof. Let G ⊂ Rn
be open. We construct a family of cubes (rectangles of
equal sides) as follows. First, we bisect Rn
into almost disjoint cubes {Qi : i ∈ N}
of side one with integer coordinates. If Qi ⊂ G, we include Qi in the family, and
if Qi is disjoint from G, we exclude it. Otherwise, we bisect the sides of Qi to
obtain 2n
almost disjoint cubes of side one-half and repeat the procedure. Iterating
this process arbitrarily many times, we obtain a countable family of almost disjoint
cubes.
The union of the cubes in this family is contained in G, since we only include
cubes that are contained in G. Conversely, if x ∈ G, then since G is open some suf-
ficiently small cube in the bisection procedure that contains x is entirely contained
in G, and the largest such cube is included in the family. Hence the union of the
family contains G, and is therefore equal to G.
In fact, the proof shows that every open set is an almost disjoint union of dyadic
cubes.
Proposition 2.21. The Borel algebra B(Rn
) is generated by the collection of
rectangles R(Rn
). Every Borel set is Lebesgue measurable.
Proof. Since R is a subset of the closed sets, we have σ(R) ⊂ B. Conversely,
by the previous proposition, σ(R) ⊃ T , so σ(R) ⊃ σ(T ) = B, and therefore
B = σ(R). From Proposition 2.11, we have R ⊂ L. Since L is a σ-algebra, it
follows that σ(R) ⊂ L, so B ⊂ L.
Note that if
G =
∞
[
i=1
Ri
is a decomposition of an open set G into an almost disjoint union of closed rectan-
gles, then
G ⊃
∞
[
i=1
R◦
i
is a disjoint union, and therefore
∞
X
i=1
µ(R◦
i ) ≤ µ(G) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri).
Since µ(R◦
i ) = µ(Ri), it follows that
µ(G) =
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri)

for any such decomposition and that the sum is independent of the way in which
G is decomposed into almost disjoint rectangles.
The Borel σ-algebra B is not complete and is strictly smaller than the Lebesgue
σ-algebra L. In fact, one can show that the cardinality of B is equal to the cardinal-
ity c of the real numbers, whereas the cardinality of L is equal to 2c
. For example,
the Cantor set is a set of measure zero with the same cardinality as R and every
subset of the Cantor set is Lebesgue measurable.
We can obtain examples of sets that are Lebesgue measurable but not Borel
measurable by considering subsets of sets of measure zero. In the following example
of such a set in R, we use some properties of measurable functions which will be
proved later.
Example 2.22. Let f : [0, 1] → [0, 1] denote the standard Cantor function and
define g : [0, 1] → [0, 1] by
g(y) = inf {x ∈ [0, 1] : f(x) = y} .
Then g is an increasing, one-to-one function that maps [0, 1] onto the Cantor set
C. Since g is increasing it is Borel measurable, and the inverse image of a Borel
set under g is Borel. Let E ⊂ [0, 1] be a non-Lebesgue measurable set. Then
F = g(E) ⊂ C is Lebesgue measurable, since it is a subset of a set of measure zero,
but F is not Borel measurable, since if it was E = g−1
(F) would be Borel.
Other examples of Lebesgue measurable sets that are not Borel sets arise from
the theory of product measures in Rn
for n ≥ 2. For example, let N = E×{0} ⊂ R2
where E ⊂ R is a non-Lebesgue measurable set in R. Then N is a subset of the
x-axis, which has two-dimensional Lebesgue measure zero, so N belongs to L(R2
)
since Lebesgue measure is complete. One can show, however, that if a set belongs
to B(R2
) then every section with fixed x or y coordinate, belongs to B(R); thus, N
cannot belong to B(R2
) since the y = 0 section E is not Borel.
As we show below, L(Rn
) is the completion of B(Rn
) with respect to Lebesgue
measure, meaning that we get all Lebesgue measurable sets by adjoining all subsets
of Borel sets of measure zero to the Borel σ-algebra and taking unions of such sets.
2.7. Borel regularity
Regularity properties of measures refer to the possibility of approximating in
measure one class of sets (for example, nonmeasurable sets) by another class of
sets (for example, measurable sets). Lebesgue measure is Borel regular in the sense
that Lebesgue measurable sets can be approximated in measure from the outside
by open sets and from the inside by closed sets, and they can be approximated
by Borel sets up to sets of measure zero. Moreover, there is a simple criterion for
Lebesgue measurability in terms of open and closed sets.
The following theorem expresses a fundamental approximation property of
Lebesgue measurable sets by open and compact sets. Equations (2.9) and (2.10)
are called outer and inner regularity, respectively.
Theorem 2.23. If A ⊂ Rn
, then
(2.9) µ∗
(A) = inf {µ(G) : A ⊂ G, G open} ,
and if A is Lebesgue measurable, then
(2.10) µ(A) = sup {µ(K) : K ⊂ A, K compact} .

2.7. BOREL REGULARITY 23
Proof. First, we prove (2.9). The result is immediate if µ∗
(A) = ∞, so we
suppose that µ∗
(A) is finite. If A ⊂ G, then µ∗
(A) ≤ µ(G), so
µ∗
(A) ≤ inf {µ(G) : A ⊂ G, G open} ,
and we just need to prove the reverse inequality,
(2.11) µ∗
(A) ≥ inf {µ(G) : A ⊂ G, G open} .
Let ǫ 0. There is a cover {Ri : i ∈ N} of A by rectangles Ri such that
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) ≤ µ∗
(A) +
ǫ
2
.
Let Si be an rectangle whose interior S◦
i contains Ri such that
µ(Si) ≤ µ(Ri) +
ǫ
2i+1
.
Then the collection of open rectangles {S◦
i : i ∈ N} covers A and
G =
∞
[
i=1
S◦
i
is an open set that contains A. Moreover, since {Si : i ∈ N} covers G,
µ(G) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Si) ≤
∞
X
i=1
µ(Ri) +
ǫ
2
,
and therefore
(2.12) µ(G) ≤ µ∗
(A) + ǫ.
It follows that
inf {µ(G) : A ⊂ G, G open} ≤ µ∗
(A) + ǫ,
which proves (2.11) since ǫ 0 is arbitrary.
Next, we prove (2.10). If K ⊂ A, then µ(K) ≤ µ(A), so
sup {µ(K) : K ⊂ A, K compact} ≤ µ(A).
Therefore, we just need to prove the reverse inequality,
(2.13) µ(A) ≤ sup {µ(K) : K ⊂ A, K compact} .
To do this, we apply the previous result to Ac
and use the measurability of A.
First, suppose that A is a bounded measurable set, in which case µ(A) ∞.
Let F ⊂ Rn
be a compact set that contains A. By the preceding result, for any
ǫ 0, there is an open set G ⊃ F A such that
µ(G) ≤ µ(F A) + ǫ.
Then K = F G is a compact set such that K ⊂ A. Moreover, F ⊂ K ∪ G and
F = A ∪ (F A), so
µ(F) ≤ µ(K) + µ(G), µ(F) = µ(A) + µ(F A).
It follows that
µ(A) = µ(F) − µ(F A)
≤ µ(F) − µ(G) + ǫ
≤ µ(K) + ǫ,

which implies (2.13) and proves the result for bounded, measurable sets.
Now suppose that A is an unbounded measurable set, and define
(2.14) Ak = {x ∈ A : |x| ≤ k} .
Then {Ak : k ∈ N} is an increasing sequence of bounded measurable sets whose
union is A, so
(2.15) µ(Ak) ↑ µ(A) as k → ∞.
If µ(A) = ∞, then µ(Ak) → ∞ as k → ∞. By the previous result, we can find a
compact set Kk ⊂ Ak ⊂ A such that
µ(Kk) + 1 ≥ µ(Ak)
so that µ(Kk) → ∞. Therefore
sup {µ(K) : K ⊂ A, K compact} = ∞,
which proves the result in this case.
Finally, suppose that A is unbounded and µ(A) ∞. From (2.15), for any
ǫ 0 we can choose k ∈ N such that
µ(A) ≤ µ(Ak) +
ǫ
2
.
Moreover, since Ak is bounded, there is a compact set K ⊂ Ak such that
µ(Ak) ≤ µ(K) +
ǫ
2
.
Therefore, for every ǫ 0 there is a compact set K ⊂ A such that
µ(A) ≤ µ(K) + ǫ,
which gives (2.13), and completes the proof.
It follows that we may determine the Lebesgue measure of a measurable set in
terms of the Lebesgue measure of open or compact sets by approximating the set
from the outside by open sets or from the inside by compact sets.
The outer approximation in (2.9) does not require that A is measurable. Thus,
for any set A ⊂ Rn
, given ǫ 0, we can find an open set G ⊃ A such that
µ(G) − µ∗
(A) ǫ. If A is measurable, we can strengthen this condition to get
that µ∗
(G A) ǫ; in fact, this gives a necessary and sufficient condition for
measurability.
Theorem 2.24. A subset A ⊂ Rn
is Lebesgue measurable if and only if for
every ǫ 0 there is an open set G ⊃ A such that
(2.16) µ∗
(G A) ǫ.
Proof. First we assume that A is measurable and show that it satisfies the
condition given in the theorem.
Suppose that µ(A) ∞ and let ǫ 0. From (2.12) there is an open set G ⊃ A
such that µ(G) µ∗
(A) + ǫ. Then, since A is measurable,
µ∗
(G A) = µ∗
(G) − µ∗
(G ∩ A) = µ(G) − µ∗
(A) ǫ,
which proves the result when A has finite measure.

2.7. BOREL REGULARITY 25
If µ(A) = ∞, define Ak ⊂ A as in (2.14), and let ǫ 0. Since Ak is measurable
with finite measure, the argument above shows that for each k ∈ N, there is an
open set Gk ⊃ Ak such that
µ(Gk Ak)
ǫ
2k
.
Then G =
S∞
k=1 Gk is an open set that contains A, and
µ∗
(G A) = µ∗
∞
[
k=1
Gk A
!
≤
∞
X
k=1
µ∗
(Gk A) ≤
∞
X
k=1
µ∗
(Gk Ak) ǫ.
Conversely, suppose that A ⊂ Rn
satisfies the condition in the theorem. Let
ǫ 0, and choose an open set G ⊃ A such that µ∗
(G A) ǫ. If E ⊂ Rn
, we have
E ∩ Ac
= (E ∩ Gc
) ∪ (E ∩ (G A)).
Hence, by the subadditivity and monotonicity of µ∗
and the measurability of G,
µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
) ≤ µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Gc
) + µ∗
(E ∩ (G A))
≤ µ∗
(E ∩ G) + µ∗
(E ∩ Gc
) + µ∗
(G A)
µ∗
(E) + ǫ.
Since ǫ 0 is arbitrary, it follows that
µ∗
(E) ≥ µ∗
(E ∩ A) + µ∗
(E ∩ Ac
)
which proves that A is measurable.
This theorem states that a set is Lebesgue measurable if and only if it can be
approximated from the outside by an open set in such a way that the difference
has arbitrarily small outer Lebesgue measure. This condition can be adopted as
the definition of Lebesgue measurable sets, rather than the Carathéodory definition
which we have used c.f. [5, 8, 11].
The following theorem gives another characterization of Lebesgue measurable
sets, as ones that can be ‘squeezed’ between open and closed sets.
Theorem 2.25. A subset A ⊂ Rn
is Lebesgue measurable if and only if for
every ǫ 0 there is an open set G and a closed set F such that G ⊃ A ⊃ F and
(2.17) µ(G F) ǫ.
If µ(A) ∞, then F may be chosen to be compact.
Proof. If A satisfies the condition in the theorem, then it follows from the
monotonicity of µ∗
that µ∗
(G A) ≤ µ(G F) ǫ, so A is measurable by Theo-
rem 2.24.
Conversely, if A is measurable then Ac
is measurable, and by Theorem 2.24
given ǫ 0, there are open sets G ⊃ A and H ⊃ Ac
such that
µ∗
(G A)
ǫ
2
, µ∗
(H Ac
)
ǫ
2
.
Then, defining the closed set F = Hc
, we have G ⊃ A ⊃ F and
µ(G F) ≤ µ∗
(G A) + µ∗
(A F) = µ∗
(G A) + µ∗
(H Ac
) ǫ.
Finally, suppose that µ(A) ∞ and let ǫ 0. From Theorem 2.23, since A is
measurable, there is a compact set K ⊂ A such that µ(A) µ(K) + ǫ/2 and
µ(A K) = µ(A) − µ(K)
ǫ
2
.

As before, from Theorem 2.24 there is an open set G ⊃ A such that
µ(G) µ(A) + ǫ/2.
It follows that G ⊃ A ⊃ K and
µ(G K) = µ(G A) + µ(A K) ǫ,
which shows that we may take F = K compact when A has finite measure.
From the previous results, we can approximate measurable sets by open or
closed sets, up to sets of arbitrarily small but, in general, nonzero measure. By
taking countable intersections of open sets or countable unions of closed sets, we
can approximate measurable sets by Borel sets, up to sets of measure zero
Definition 2.26. The collection of sets in Rn
that are countable intersections
of open sets is denoted by Gδ(Rn
), and the collection of sets in Rn
that are countable
unions of closed sets is denoted by Fσ(Rn
).
Gδ and Fσ sets are Borel. Thus, it follows from the next result that every
Lebesgue measurable set can be approximated up to a set of measure zero by a
Borel set. This is the Borel regularity of Lebesgue measure.
Theorem 2.27. Suppose that A ⊂ Rn
is Lebesgue measurable. Then there exist
sets G ∈ Gδ(Rn
) and F ∈ Fσ(Rn
) such that
G ⊃ A ⊃ F, µ(G A) = µ(A F) = 0.
Proof. For each k ∈ N, choose an open set Gk and a closed set Fk such that
Gk ⊃ A ⊃ Fk and
µ(Gk Fk) ≤
1
k
Then
G =
∞

k=1
Gk, F =
∞
[
k=1
Fk
are Gδ and Fσ sets with the required properties.
In particular, since any measurable set can be approximated up to a set of
measure zero by a Gδ or an Fσ, the complexity of the transfinite construction of
general Borel sets illustrated in (2.8) is ‘hidden’ inside sets of Lebesgue measure
zero.
As a corollary of this result, we get that the Lebesgue σ-algebra is the comple-
tion of the Borel σ-algebra with respect to Lebesgue measure.
Theorem 2.28. The Lebesgue σ-algebra L(Rn
) is the completion of the Borel
σ-algebra B(Rn
).
Proof. Lebesgue measure is complete from Proposition 2.12. By the previous
theorem, if A ⊂ Rn
is Lebesgue measurable, then there is a Fσ set F ⊂ A such that
M = A F has Lebesgue measure zero. It follows by the approximation theorem
that there is a Borel set N ∈ Gδ with µ(N) = 0 and M ⊂ N. Thus, A = F ∪ M
where F ∈ B and M ⊂ N ∈ B with µ(N) = 0, which proves that L(Rn
) is the
completion of B(Rn
) as given in Theorem 1.15.

2.8. LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS 27
2.8. Linear transformations
The definition of Lebesgue measure is not rotationally invariant, since we used
rectangles whose sides are parallel to the coordinate axes. In this section, we show
that the resulting measure does not, in fact, depend upon the direction of the
coordinate axes and is invariant under orthogonal transformations. We also show
that Lebesgue measure transforms under a linear map by a factor equal to the
absolute value of the determinant of the map.
As before, we use µ∗
to denote Lebesgue outer measure defined using rectangles
whose sides are parallel to the coordinate axes; a set is Lebesgue measurable if it
satisfies the Carathéodory criterion (2.8) with respect to this outer measure. If
T : Rn
→ Rn
is a linear map and E ⊂ Rn
, we denote the image of E under T by
T E = {T x ∈ Rn
: x ∈ E} .
First, we consider the Lebesgue measure of rectangles whose sides are not paral-
lel to the coordinate axes. We use a tilde to denote such rectangles by R̃; we denote
closed rectangles whose sides are parallel to the coordinate axes by R as before.
We refer to R̃ and R as oblique and parallel rectangles, respectively. We denote
the volume of a rectangle R̃ by v(R̃), i.e. the product of the lengths of its sides, to
avoid confusion with its Lebesgue measure µ(R̃). We know that µ(R) = v(R) for
parallel rectangles, and that R̃ is measurable since it is closed, but we have not yet
shown that µ(R̃) = v(R̃) for oblique rectangles.
More explicitly, we regard Rn
as a Euclidean space equipped with the standard
inner product,
(x, y) =
n
X
i=1
xiyi, x = (x1, x2, . . . , xn), y = (y1, y2, . . . , yn).
If {e1, e2, . . . , en} is the standard orthonormal basis of Rn
,
e1 = (1, 0, . . ., 0), e2 = (0, 1, . . . , 0), . . . en = (0, 0, . . . , 1),
and {ẽ1, ẽ2, . . . , ẽn} is another orthonormal basis, then we use R to denote rectangles
whose sides are parallel to {ei} and R̃ to denote rectangles whose sides are parallel
to {ẽi}. The linear map Q : Rn
→ Rn
defined by Qei = ẽi is orthogonal, meaning
that QT
= Q−1
and
(Qx, Qy) = (x, y) for all x, y ∈ Rn
.
Since Q preserves lengths and angles, it maps a rectangle R to a rectangle R̃ = QR
such that v(R̃) = v(R).
We will use the following lemma.
Lemma 2.29. If an oblique rectangle R̃ contains a finite almost disjoint collec-
tion of parallel rectangles {R1, R2, . . . , RN } then
N
X
i=1
v(Ri) ≤ v(R̃).
This result is geometrically obvious, but a formal proof seems to require a fuller
discussion of the volume function on elementary geometrical sets, which is included
in the theory of valuations in convex geometry. We omit the details.

Proposition 2.30. If R̃ is an oblique rectangle, then given any ǫ 0 there is
a collection of parallel rectangles {Ri : i ∈ N} that covers R̃ and satisfies
∞
X
i=1
v(Ri) ≤ v(R̃) + ǫ.
Proof. Let S̃ be an oblique rectangle that contains R̃ in its interior such that
v(S̃) ≤ v(R̃) + ǫ.
Then, from Proposition 2.20, we may decompose the interior of S into an almost
disjoint union of parallel rectangles
S̃◦
=
∞
[
i=1
Ri.
It follows from the previous lemma that for every N ∈ N
N
X
i=1
v(Ri) ≤ v(S̃),
which implies that
∞
X
i=1
v(Ri) ≤ v(S̃) ≤ v(R̃) + ǫ.
Moreover, the collection {Ri} covers R̃ since its union is S̃◦
, which contains R̃.
Conversely, by reversing the roles of the axes, we see that if R is a parallel
rectangle and ǫ 0, then there is a cover of R by oblique rectangles {R̃i : i ∈ N}
such that
(2.18)
∞
X
i=1
v(R̃i) ≤ v(R) + ǫ.
Theorem 2.31. If E ⊂ Rn
and Q : Rn
→ Rn
is an orthogonal transformation,
then
µ∗
(QE) = µ∗
(E),
and E is Lebesgue measurable if an only if QE is Lebesgue measurable.
Proof. Let Ẽ = QE. Given ǫ 0 there is a cover of Ẽ by parallel rectangles
{Ri : i ∈ N} such that
∞
X
i=1
v(Ri) ≤ µ∗
(Ẽ) +
ǫ
2
.
From (2.18), for each i ∈ N we can choose a cover {R̃i,j : j ∈ N} of Ri by oblique
rectangles such that
∞
X
i=1
v(R̃i,j) ≤ v(Ri) +
ǫ
2i+1
.
Then {R̃i,j : i, j ∈ N} is a countable cover of Ẽ by oblique rectangles, and
∞
X
i,j=1
v(R̃i,j) ≤
∞
X
i=1
v(Ri) +
ǫ
2
≤ µ∗
(Ẽ) + ǫ.

2.8. LINEAR TRANSFORMATIONS 29
If Ri,j = QT
R̃i,j, then {Ri,j : j ∈ N} is a cover of E by parallel rectangles, so
µ∗
(E) ≤
∞
X
i,j=1
v(Ri,j).
Moreover, since Q is orthogonal, we have v(Ri,j) = v(R̃i,j). It follows that
µ∗
(E) ≤
∞
X
i,j=1
v(Ri,j) =
∞
X
i,j=1
v(R̃i,j) ≤ µ∗
(Ẽ) + ǫ,
and since ǫ 0 is arbitrary, we conclude that
µ∗
(E) ≤ µ∗
(Ẽ).
By applying the same argument to the inverse mapping E = QT
Ẽ, we get the
reverse inequality, and it follows that µ∗
(E) = µ∗
(Ẽ).
Since µ∗
is invariant under Q, the Carathéodory criterion for measurability is
invariant, and E is measurable if and only if QE is measurable.
It follows from Theorem 2.31 that Lebesgue measure is invariant under rotations
and reflections.4
Since it is also invariant under translations, Lebesgue measure is
invariant under all isometries of Rn
.
Next, we consider the effect of dilations on Lebesgue measure. Arbitrary linear
maps may then be analyzed by decomposing them into rotations and dilations.
Proposition 2.32. Suppose that Λ : Rn
→ Rn
is the linear transformation
(2.19) Λ : (x1, x2, . . . , xn) 7→ (λ1x1, λ2x2, . . . , λnxn)
where the λi 0 are positive constants. Then
µ∗
(ΛE) = (det Λ)µ∗
(E),
and E is Lebesgue measurable if and only if ΛE is Lebesgue measurable.
Proof. The diagonal map Λ does not change the orientation of a rectan-
gle, so it maps a cover of E by parallel rectangles to a cover of ΛE by paral-
lel rectangles, and conversely. Moreover, Λ multiplies the volume of a rectangle
by det Λ = λ1 . . . λn, so it immediate from the definition of outer measure that
µ∗
(E), and E satisfies the Carathéodory criterion for measura-
bility if and only if ΛE does.
Theorem 2.33. Suppose that T : Rn
→ Rn
is a linear transformation and
E ⊂ Rn
. Then
µ∗
(T E) = |det T | µ∗
(E),
and T E is Lebesgue measurable if E is measurable
Proof. If T is singular, then its range is a lower-dimensional subspace of Rn
,
which has Lebesgue measure zero, and its determinant is zero, so the result holds.5
We therefore assume that T is nonsingular.
4Unlike differential volume forms, Lebesgue measure does not depend on the orientation of
Rn; such measures are sometimes referred to as densities in differential geometry.
5In this case TE, is always Lebesgue measurable, with measure zero, even if E is not
measurable.

In that case, according to the polar decomposition, the map T may be written
as a composition
T = QU
of a positive definite, symmetric map U =
√
T T T and an orthogonal map Q. Any
positive-definite, symmetric map U may be diagonalized by an orthogonal map O
to get
U = OT
ΛO
where Λ : Rn
→ Rn
has the form (2.19). From Theorem 2.31, orthogonal mappings
leave the Lebesgue measure of a set invariant, so from Proposition 2.32
µ∗
(T E) = µ∗
(E).
Since | det Q| = 1 for any orthogonal map Q, we have det Λ = | det T |, and it follows
that µ∗
(T E) = |det T | µ∗
(E).
Finally, it is straightforward to see that T E is measurable if E is measurable.

2.9. Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures
We briefly consider a generalization of one-dimensional Lebesgue measure,
called Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures on R. These measures are obtained from an
increasing, right-continuous function F : R → R, and assign to a half-open interval
(a, b] the measure
µF ((a, b]) = F(b) − F(a).
The use of half-open intervals is significant here because a Lebesgue-Stieltjes mea-
sure may assign nonzero measure to a single point. Thus, unlike Lebesgue measure,
we need not have µF ([a, b]) = µF ((a, b]). Half-open intervals are also convenient
because the complement of a half-open interval is a finite union of (possibly infi-
nite) half-open intervals of the same type. Thus, the collection of finite unions of
half-open intervals forms an algebra.
The right-continuity of F is consistent with the use of intervals that are half-
open at the left, since
∞

i=1
(a, a + 1/i] = ∅,
so, from (1.2), if F is to define a measure we need
lim
i→∞
µF ((a, a + 1/i]) = 0
or
lim
i→∞
[F(a + 1/i) − F(a)] = lim
x→a+
F(x) − F(a) = 0.
Conversely, as we state in the next theorem, any such function F defines a Borel
measure on R.
Theorem 2.34. Suppose that F : R → R is an increasing, right-continuous
function. Then there is a unique Borel measure µF : B(R) → [0, ∞] such that
µF ((a, b]) = F(b) − F(a)
for every a b.

2.9. LEBESGUE-STIELTJES MEASURES 31
The construction of µF is similar to the construction of Lebesgue measure on
Rn
. We define an outer measure µ∗
F : P(R) → [0, ∞] by
µ∗
F (E) = inf
( ∞
X
i=1
[F(bi) − F(ai)] : E ⊂
S∞
i=1(ai, bi]
)
,
and restrict µ∗
F to its Carathéodory measurable sets, which include the Borel sets.
See e.g. Section 1.5 of Folland [4] for a detailed proof.
The following examples illustrate the three basic types of Lebesgue-Stieltjes
measures.
Example 2.35. If F(x) = x, then µF is Lebesgue measure on R with
µF ((a, b]) = b − a.
Example 2.36. If
F(x) =

1 if x ≥ 0,
0 if x 0,
then µF is the δ-measure supported at 0,
µF (A) =

1 if 0 ∈ A,
0 if 0 /
∈ A.
Example 2.37. If F : R → R is the Cantor function, then µF assigns measure
one to the Cantor set, which has Lebesgue measure zero, and measure zero to its
complement. Despite the fact that µF is supported on a set of Lebesgue measure
zero, the µF -measure of any countable set is zero.

measure_notes_ch2.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to measure_notes_ch2.pdf

Similar to measure_notes_ch2.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

measure_notes_ch2.pdf